What a Difference #1More Can Make

Ever since we started following him, we knew he would be going places. We knew he had that "fire in the belly".

We also knew he had something we don't often see in ambitious politicians: a genuine drive to help one's constituents. Whether he's been sticking up for his law abiding constituents in Bunkerville, helping veterans access the health care they need in Las Vegas & Pahrump, or looking after military families in Hawthorne, Rep. Steven Horsford (D-North Las Vegas) has been going the extra mile to serve all his constituents in NV-04.



He helped Alan in Centennial Hills access the veterans benefits he earned...



And he helped Dona in Pahrump clear up her tax issues.



Typically, this is the kind of constituent service that gets rave reviews. But you know who isn't a fan of this? Karl Rove. His Crossroads PAC is dumping about $1,000,000 worth of anti-Horsford ads onto Nevada airwaves.

Karl Rove is hoping this will be enough to make NV-04 voters forget all about Cresent Hardy's fondness for "segregation laws" and shady finances. He's hoping this will be enough to make voters forget about Rep. Horsford's tireless work to keep Bryan Rivera's family together.



Because early voting has been very slow so far, Republican operatives are now boasting of a "wave". And now, they're claiming this means Cresent Hardy has "momentum".

Never mind Rep. Horsford's actual record of service to constituents. Never mind the stories of Alan, Dona, & Bryan. And never mind Rep. Horsford earning the endorsements of all the major Southern Nevada newspapers. Because only a few people have voted so far, Republicans now think they can sneak Cresent Hardy into Congress.

What a difference #1more vote can make. A few more votes can make a huge difference in the coming days. A few more votes can shift "conventional wisdom". A few more votes can turn back a "wave".

And now, a few more #1more's can upend Karl Rove's political calculus? Might you be that #1more to do it?

The Root of All Kinds of Evil

It's that time of the cycle again. We're seeing a downpour of campaign finance reports. And of course, reporters and pundits are "analyzing" "who's up & who's down" due to how much each has raised.

We're seeing tremendous fundraising hauls for candidates in hot races... And we're even seeing tremendous fundraising hauls for candidates who aren't in hot races. So what does this all mean?

Now, we're even seeing attack ads over "gifts" paid for by "gifts" from "high friends in low places". Hell, these "high friends in low places" are even paying for attack ads that indirectly attack them! What on earth are we supposed to make of this?



This is actually what US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) was talking about yesterday. This is what happens we allow so much corporate money to flood our politics.

Want to know why we're now having to decide major tax policy in the voting booth this year? Look no further than here... Or here... Or here.

Want to know why we're all too often subjected to a vapid debate over "optics" instead an actual, substantive debate on the issues we truly care about? Take a look here. Need we say more?



There's a reason why we keep harping on this. And there's a reason why religious texts, such as The Bible, have warned about the love of money.

Want to get to the root of all the evil that's seeped into our politics? Follow the money. And if you want to uproot this evil, you need to get this dirty money out of our politics.

Lunch With Bernie (Sanders, That Is)

So we attended a campaign event today. And we met someone who may run for President in 2016. And yes, he talked about that.

US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) was invited by the Culinary Union to speak at its get out the vote rally at the Culinary Academy in North Las Vegas. At today's event, Senator Sanders touched on the major issues in this election. He addressed the the one issue that's come to define political landscape in recent cycles.





He also touched on why so many Americans are so disgusted with our government. (Hint: Follow the money.)



And yes, Senator Sanders addressed the matter of the Kochs. He explained how all the Koch money being dumped into campaigns across the nation (including here in Nevada) prevents us from having nice things. And when we say nice things, we mean policies like a livable minimum wage, extended unemployment insurance, strong action on climate change, and relief for students who are drowning in student loan debt.



Earlier this week, Nevada's top media pundits and "bid'ness establishment" elite were fluttering around a certain visit by another rumored 2016 Presidential Candidate. Yet while they were debating the "optics" of the event, they completely overlooked the policy questions that should have been examined when she arrived. Why didn't any one at Bellagio want to talk about the actual issues that the fundraiser should have been all about?

Perhaps because Senator Sanders' visit to the Culinary Academy didn't attract the kind of media attention and "controversy" that the Bellagio UNLV Foundation fundraiser did, the conversation didn't devolve into a shouting match over "optics". And perhaps that's a good thing. After all, we can now present you with this very real discussion over truly important issues.

And frankly, this is the kind of "candidate sighting" we actually enjoy.

What's He Afraid Of?

This? Again? Really?

The Clark County Republican Party figured it would be a great idea to send a "gift box" to outgoing Secretary of State and current Attorney General candidate Ross Miller (D). But why? Oh, they're just rehashing an issue that Miller himself has already been working on.

But shhhh, don't say that to Miller's Republican opponent, Adam Laxalt. He thinks this is somehow his "original idea". There's just no record of him supporting any campaign finance reform legislation in Carson City (like Miller has).

So now's probably a good time for Adam Laxalt to go on record and make his case. The problem? Laxalt is now ducking debates. While he has just agreed to a debate moderated by the always superb Steve Sebelius, he's refusing to participate in any other debates. Oh, and his "campaign adviser" tried to throw shade at Jon Ralston while rejecting a debate on his show. Yep, that's never a good idea.

So what's their issue? Oh yes, Mr. Laxalt always has "political issues"... Especially when those issues involve civil rights. So is Adam Laxalt simply afraid of Ross Miller confronting him on actual, serious issues, such as marriage equality?



Is he afraid of answering other tough questions on LGBTQ civil rights? Is he afraid of expanding on his "ideas" for fighting political corruption? Is he afraid of being asked about his assertion that Obamacare (aka the Affordable Care Act) is "the most flawed piece of major legislation America has ever endured"?

What's he afraid of? Why is Adam Laxalt so afraid of coming out and speaking in public about his "political issues"? He'd have a much better chance of being taken seriously if he were to ditch the cheap "street theater" stunts and actually speak directly to the people he's seeking to serve in state government.

UPDATE: All T, all shade, baby. Ralston has the scoop on Laxalt's horrible job performance review at Lewis & Roca. This is the law firm that hired Adam Laxalt upon his move to Nevada. Take a look at the evaluation review. The document truly speaks for itself.

If It's Dirty, Why Not Clean It?

How many times have we confronted this? We've examined the shells. We've smelled the stinky juice. We've felt the shadows. We've even raced to catch up with the Speedway.

Yet through it all, we've become quite dizzy from all the rides on Nevada's notorious "Merry-go-round of Corruption". Sadly, we need to step back on that merry-go-round this morning to examine an aspect of Nevada politics that is often overlooked: our local judiciary.

We must give credit where it's due. "Newspaper" columnist Jane Ann Morrison (one of the few other reasons to even bother reading it) recently exposed the kind of bare knuckle political maneuvering that we typically don't expect on the judicial bench. There are now even accusations of what authorities in other states call bribery... But what we in Nevada just refer to as "politics as usual".

To be fair, there are a number of shady characters in this story. At this point, it's hard to figure out who's telling the complete truth (if anyone). However, what can't be denied at this point is that a number of judicial candidates are dependent upon well heeled contributors who also happen to visit the courtrooms they aspire to preside over. And that in and of itself is a problem.

One of the foundations of our judiciary is the guarantee of equal protection under the law. How are we supposed to expect that if we sense that those who can afford to "pay to play" happen to receive "more equal protection" than the rest of us? How are we supposed to trust our courts' ability to fairly interpret the law when they're under the influence of a few powerful & moneyed interests who expect a certain interpretation that happens to favor them?

We've said this many times before, but we must say it again today: If we want to end this dizzying feeling we sense when viewing the dirty reality of Nevada politics, we must stop the merry-go-round of corruption. And the only way to truly stop it is to end the seemingly endless flow of dirty money into all aspects of our political system... Even our judiciary.

We're again hearing debate over whether we should continue direct election of judges, or just allow the state to appoint them. And while fair arguments can be made for either side, we sense both sides are missing the point. After all, can we fully trust the Governor and legislators when they are also under the influence of numerous campaign donors?

For us, there's one clear solution to this problem: clean money. Why not simply level the playing field so we can all participate?

It's already working in other parts of the nation. Why not bring it here to Nevada? (And for that matter, why can't the entire nation have it?) Lordy knows we need a whole lot of disinfectant to clean up our system. So why not start cleaning it up already?

Lessons Learned?

Apparently, this is becoming the hot topic of this election cycle. We've already been discussing the reality behind the Koch Brothers' extreme ideological agenda, as well as the great lengths they're going to amass power on Capitol Hill.

However, they're not alone. They're not the only "TEA Party, Inc." aligned billionaires who spend tons of money buying candidates influencing elections. And now, a character who's rather familiar to us here in Nevada is preparing to reemerge.

Remember Sheldon Adelson? He's back! And this time, he's looking for a new candidate to buy back.

This week, Adelson has summoned 4 likely 2016 Republican Presidential candidates to kiss his ring meet him at the Republican Jewish Coalition spring meeting here in Vegas. And so far, it looks like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R), New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R), Ohio Governor John Kasich (R), and Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R) will be accepting Adelson's invitation. But why, why is Adelson courting these 4 Republicans?

According to Adelson BFF (& 2011 Las Vegas Mayoral candidate) Victor Chaltiel, "He doesn’t want a crazy extremist to be the nominee." Instead, he wants a less "crazy/extreme looking" G-O-TEA lackey to carry his water and do so competently. Apparently, Adelson learned his lesson after bankrolling Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney in 2012.

And now, Adelson wants to teach his party a lesson. Not only is he afraid of Hillary Clinton, but he's also afraid of his own party's base. And more specifically, he's afraid of Ron Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) rallying the G-O-TEA base to take the Republican Party in a more "libertarian populist" (aka batsh*t crazy "TEA" flavored) direction.

Apparently, Sheldon Adelson hasn't really learned his lessons from 2012. He's still shopping for damaged goods. And he's still picking nasty fights with the Paulistas. And both of these big mistakes will likely return to bite him, just as they did in 2012.

But in the mean time, let's think about the ramifications of Adelson starting another political spending spree. Last we checked, Las Vegas Sands is still facing legal trouble over its shady business operations in China. Meanwhile here in the states, Adelson's newest front group is catching scrutiny over its curious campaign to kill legal online gaming. And now, he wants to buy another Presidential candidate? When did this become "normal politics"?

And when will we develop the courage necessary to change this new, dangerous reality? Perhaps there are still lessons we must learn about money in politics?

"Profiles in Courage"

What do you think of when the words "Profile in Courage" come to mind? And who do you think of? Probably not Senator Dean Heller (R)?

There are many things we can say about Senator Dean Heller. "Profile in Courage" likely isn't one of them. And it's certainly not something a certain prominent media pundit would say about the Senator.

And speaking of Jon Ralston, he's had some beef with Senator Heller over his refusal to indicate whether he was comped into a NASCAR race at Las Vegas Motor Speedway. He eventually told a reporter (from the "newspaper") that he paid for his own ticket, but that was only after Ralston revealed that Las Vegas Motor Speedway offers comps to lawmakers every year in return for ensuring it won't get taxed. And that was only after three State Senators were shamed into reimbursing the Speedway owners once news broke that they (along with even more elected officials) were comped into the NASCAR race.

In reality, we may never really know the full truth of what happened at Las Vegas Motor Speedway. Why's that? Current Nevada law allows politicians to "accept gifts under $200" without reporting them as campaign contributions. Outgoing Secretary of State (& current Attorney General candidate) Ross Miller (D) attempted to close this and other campaign finance loopholes last year. And while he did ultimately succeed iin getting the Nevada Legislature to pass a modest campaign finance reform package, that was only after the "Gaming-mining-lobbying Industrial Complex" succeeded in watering it down so it wouldn't be too threatening to the choke hold it has on Carson City.

That's why Senator Heller and a bunch of state legislators figured it would be "no big deal" if they accepted Las Vegas Motor Speedway's generous invitation to a special NASCAR celebration in their honor. And as long as they they keep giving the "Gaming-mining-lobbying Industrial Complex" the "Black Card" treatment, they'll always get the red carpet treatment where they want it most.

Meanwhile, "We the People" keep getting the shaft. Why? As long as the game is continually rigged in favor of those can afford to "pay to play", we'll always be left out in the cold.

And that's why we always come back to this key point: If we don't like the "Black Card/Red Carpet/Pay-to-play" games being played in Carson City & DC, then we must change the game. And the only way we can effectively change the game to level the playing field for everyone is if we properly address the root of this problem.

Fortunately, solutions are available. And fortunately for Senator Heller, one of those solutions is within his reach. S 2023 would put us on the path to a fairer & cleaner election system by leveling the playing field so that big money interests can't simply buy their way to a complete political monopoly. It would allow "We the People" back into the game. And it would make elected officials more accountable to those who elected them into office in the first place.

What, you didn't think we'd take another opportunity to use another corruption scandal to direct your attention back to campaign finance reform? Come on! Of course, we had to do this. Unlike certain politicians who never seem to aspire to become actual "Profiles in Courage", we're not afraid to address the root of this problem. We're just wondering when enough of them will finally muster the courage to solve this problem once & for all.

Postscript on Whittemore Verdict, SB 49, & the Real Solution to Nevada's Culture of Corruption

What a fall from grace. Not too long ago, Harvey Whittemore was one of Nevada's top power players. But now, he's officially a convict.

A U.S. District Court jury has found developer Harvey Whittemore guilty on three counts of making illegal campaign contributions.

Jurors are telling U.S. District Court Judge Larry Hicks they don't think they can reach a verdict on charges Whittemore lied to the FBI. Hicks is sending the jury back to deliberate on the lying charge.

Oh, and what we discussed over two months ago still stands.

Of course, the usual suspects will try to spin this all sorts of ways. So let's first clear this up: Harvey Whittemore was an opportunistic and bipartisan "juice man". He once had close ties to Harry Reid, Dean Heller, and a whole host of politicians at all levels of government across the state. He was only abandoned when the FBI began investigating him.

As we've discussed before, this is the tactic often used to deflect from the real pursuit of real solutions to this ongoing problem of corruption in Nevada Government. It's easy to just blame a politician who once received campaign contributions. It's much riskier to actually propose shutting down the ongoing "Merry-go-round of Corruption". [...]

We will only experience more of these embarrassing corruption scandals if we fail to address the root of this problem. That's why we eventually need real, serious dialogue on clean money. With clean money (or public financing of campaigns), we can finally have clean elections. And with clean elections, our elected officials are no longer beholden to shady "juice men" and conniving corporate lobbyists.

So before we hear any pundits and politicians restart the blame game on this and/or any future corruption scandals to emerge, we should dare them to offer a solution. Are they ready to bring clean money & clean elections to Nevada? If not, and if they don't like the concept of public financing, what is their solution?

Last month, we saw a glimmer of hope in SB 49's passage. And while the final bill does offer some campaign finance reform and more transparency than what we had become accustomed to, it's nonetheless a shadow of its former self. And it still comes nowhere close to ending Nevada's infamous culture of corruption.

Of course, we're not alone in this. New York has had its own share of recent scandals. And earlier this year, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) showed some real courage in addressing the root of these corruption scandals... And advocating the real solution.





So my demand still stands. Before we hear any pundit and/or rival politician spin the Whittemore verdict against another politician, let's see these pundits and politicians discuss the real solution to this systemic corruption. This is what Nevada truly needs, not another meaningless round of finger pointing blame games.

Finally, a Step Forward

About an hour ago, another bill passed to live another day. This time it was SB 49, the campaign finance reform bill pushed by Secretary of State Ross Miller (D). It had to endure some weakening alterations in committee, but ultimately much of what Miller wanted survived.

And just moments ago, the amended SB 49 passed the full Senate. The vote was 13-8 in favor. All Democrats voted for the bill, and Senators Joe Hardy (R-Boulder City) & Scott Hammond (R-Las Vegas) joined the Democrats to vote to approve. All the other Republicans voted against the bill.

But of course, the ones who voted against SB 49 are claiming it's actually the Democrats who oppose campaign finance reform. "Oh, Armani! Oh, the reporting requirement here isn't good enough!" To be fair, Senator Ben Kieckhefer (R-Reno) did offer an amendment. However, the others did not. So really, their excuses for voting against SB 49 sound all too familiar.

Is this bill a panacea for better transparency and ethics? Not quite. In fact, we've discussed what's really needed to clean up the hot mess that's Nevada government.

Yet with that being said, SB 49 is a good start. It finally sets real standards for campaign finance reporting. And remember, knowledge is power. So tonight, the Nevada Legislature finally took a major step in the direction of meaningful reform.

SB 49 Campaign Finance Reform Passed Committee, Now Moving to Full Senate

Last month, we discussed the importance of the campaign finance & ethics reform bills pending in the Nevada Legislature this session. One such is bill is SB 49, Secretary of State Ross Miller's bill that calls for more campaign finance reporting. Believe it or not, SB 49 also moved out of committee yesterday. And that's no small feat.

So what happened? Yesterday, the bill had its final day in the Senate Legislative Operations & Elections Committee. A few members grumbled over the reporting requirements.

And then, the bill was amended. Secretary Miller already changed the minimum amount of immediately reportable contributions from $1,000 to $2,000. He also decided to include internet advertising as required expenditure reporting, and he agreed to exclude charitable and educational events from gift reporting. But on top of that, Senator Kelvin Atkinson (D-North Las Vegas) further amended the bill by delaying the start of the new reporting rules to 2014.

And then, finally, it was time to vote. Senators Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley) and James Settlemeyer (R-Minden) voted against SB 49. Meanwhile, Senators Atkinson, Pat Spearman (D-North Las Vegas), and Mark Manendo (D-Paradise) voted in favor. So SB 49 passed as amended.

So was it watered down some? Yep, though it was also strengthened in other ways (like required online ad reporting). But ultimately, it passed committee. It's moving onto the full Senate. And finally, something may happen.

How often have we seen ugly corruption scandals emerge? And how often have we seen the exact same reaction of petty finger pointing while offering no real solutions?

It's time for a chance. And SB 49 starts to move Nevada in a new direction of transparency. Knowledge truly is power. And the more we know about the flow of money in and out of campaigns, the more we can do to identify the problems in our campaign finance system and change them.

On Harvey Whittemore (& Heidi Gansert)... & A Way to Shut Down That Merry-go-round

Yesterday, Harvey Whittemore was denied a motion to drop his charges. Wait, what? Who?

Remember Harvey Whittemore? He was once at the top of Nevada's political ladder. He was the "preeminent juice man". And then, all of a sudden, his house of cards started tumbling down. His planned mega-development at Coyote Springs fell apart when last decade's "Real Estate Bubble" burst. His business partners then turned on him. And now, he will indeed go to trial on corruption charges.

A federal judge has denied motions by a former Nevada political powerbroker to dismiss charges alleging he used his family and employees to make illegal campaign contributions to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The Reno Gazette-Journal reports U.S. District Judge Larry Hicks on Tuesday denied four motions filed by Harvey Whittemore seeking dismissal of the government's case.

Whittemore was indicted June 6 by a federal grand jury on four counts stemming from campaign contributions made in 2007 to Reid.

Of course, the usual suspects will try to spin this all sorts of ways. So let's first clear this up: Harvey Whittimore was an opportunistic and bipartisan "juice man". He once had close ties to Harry Reid, Dean Heller, and a whole host of politicians at all levels of government across the state. He was only abandoned when the FBI began investigating him.

As we've discussed before, this is the tactic often used to deflect from the real pursuit of real solutions to this ongoing problem of corruption in Nevada Government. It's easy to just blame a politician who once received campaign contributions. It's much riskier to actually propose shutting down the ongoing "Merry-go-round of Corruption".

So what can be done? Secretary of State Ross Miller has offered SB 49 for better campaign finance reporting. State Senator Justin Jones (D-Enterprise) has offered SB 203 as a companion bill, as it calls for lobbyists to file quarterly reports. These bills at least allow for more transparency.

However, there's another step we can take to curb corruption. We've discussed it before. And we need to bring it up again now.

We will only experience more of these embarrassing corruption scandals if we fail to address the root of this problem. That's why we eventually need real, serious dialogue on clean money. With clean money (or public financing of campaigns), we can finally have clean elections. And with clean elections, our elected officials are no longer beholden to shady "juice men" and conniving corporate lobbyists.

So before we hear any pundits and politicians restart the blame game on this and/or any future corruption scandals to emerge, we should dare them to offer a solution. Are they ready to bring clean money & clean elections to Nevada? If not, and if they don't like the concept of public financing, what is their solution?

We don't have to continue riding this merry-go-round. We can stop it... If we want to.

1:30 PM UPDATE:

Ha! That didn't take long. Nevada's next great corruption scandal is now here. Thanks, Heidi Gansert!

A former Democratic Party chairman has filed a complaint alleging former GOP Assemblywoman Heidi Gansert illegally kept campaign funds, then funneled them to a PAC she controlled and then disbursed the money.

The complaint, field today by ex-Washoe Democratic Party Chairman Chris Wicker, alleges Gansert kept more than $100,000 in unpsent campaign contributions after she left office in November 2010. (She later served as Gov. Brian Sandoval's chief of staff.)

Then, in October 2011, Gansert gave most of her unspent cash -- about $74,000 -- to a PAC called Nevada First, which was controlled by....Heidi Gansert.

Wicker, who is still a spokesman for the Washoe party, sent his complaint to the secretary of state's election integrity task force, saying Gansert took too long to dispose of the money and then chose a vehicle disallowed by the law.

Surprise! Heidi Gansert raised a ton of money in her last campaign. Yet when she left the Assembly to become Governor Brian Sandoval's Chief of Staff, she didn't leave that ton of money behind. Rather, she moved that money into her own PAC, then spent it on her favored candidates... Who were, of course, Nevada Republicans like Senator Greg Brower (R-Reno) and Assembly Minority Leader Pat Hickey (R-Reno).

Just who is actually surprised by this crap? Again, we see this all the time. So when will we actually do something about it? I wonder what supposed "corruption fighter" Pat Hickey has to say about this.

Ross Miller v. Tea Party, Inc. (& Why This Matters)

So Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller has been in the news lately due to his election reform bill. However, that's not all he's been up to lately. He's also pursuing a potentially groundbreaking development in campaign finance.

Remember this story from July? "Tea Party" astroturf outfit AFP Nevada had campaigned in a Democratic (??!!) State Senate primary in North Las Vegas, and the Secretary of State's office noticed that AFP had done so without complying with state disclosure laws. (AFP is notorious for keeping its donor list a secret.) So AFP landed in the hot seat.

Yet despite this, AFP continued campaigning in several State Senate races, though this time AFP campaigned in races where Republicans needed to win to flip control of the State Senate. Perhaps because AFP's campaign was rather clumsy at times, Democrats managed to retain control of the State Senate. But nonetheless, AFP likely violated state law again by campaigning without disclosing any financial reports.

And this is why AFP has landed into deep trouble.

Miller’s court case against Americans for Prosperity, a gigantic national conservative group founded by the Koch Brothers, could pull back the curtain on the organization’s donors. AFP spent a reported $33 million during Campaign 2012, according to Open Secrets. But, by federal law, as a 501C entity AFP does not have to disclose its donors.

To the Federal Election Commission, that is. But Miller’s case against AFP, using its foolish meddling in a Democratic primary, is like a sheriff in the Old West: You come to my town, you play by my rules.

Miller, who acknowledges there is no national case law, basically argues in a lawsuit that AFP cannot expressly advocate for or against a candidate and get away with not disclosing its donors under Nevada law. The local AFP chapter never registered as either a nonprofit or PAC, [thus] exposing the national organization to Miller’s suit. It’s a case surely being monitored by DC experts and one with potentially wide ramifications for campaign disclosure, which Miller has long advocated.

And in case you were wondering, here's the provision in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that AFP landed into trouble with.

NRS 294A.0025 “Advocates expressly” or “expressly advocates” defined. “Advocates expressly” or “expressly advocates” means that a communication, taken as a whole, is susceptible to no other reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified candidate or group or candidates or a question or group of questions on the ballot at a primary election, primary city election, general election, general city election or special election. A communication does not have to include the words “vote for,” “vote against,” “elect,” “support” or other similar language to be considered a communication that expressly advocates the passage or defeat of a candidate or a question.

The spin crew at AFP Nevada still claim they did no wrong. But in examining the doorhangers, mailers, and other material they were sending to voters, it becomes quite crystal clear that AFP literature "advocated expressly" against voting for Democratic Legislature candidates. And since AFP Nevada engaged in this very activity without registering a PAC and disclosing its campaign finances, it's unclear as to exactly how AFP will defend its actions.

If Ross Miller succeeds in this law suit, Ralston is correct that it will have wide ramifications. AFP and other shadowy "Tea Party, Inc." outfits will have to think twice before campaigning. And they may ultimately have to agree to disclose campaign finances and show us the voters their donor lists. And if this happens, it will be a huge win for "small d democracy" as it gives progressives a path forward in challenging secretive big corporate money in a post-Citizens United nation.

Is "Tea Party, Inc." About to Be Exposed Here in Nevada?

Last Thursday, the radical right in Nevada was humiliated as Americans for Prosperity (AFP) had to abandon their own "tea party" in Las Vegas. However, something else happened Thursday that may end up causing even more heartburn for "Tea Party, Inc."... And finally give us an opportunity to learn who's actually funding them.

And strangely enough, AFP finally landed into trouble by wading into a DEMOCRATIC State Senate primary.

In a complaint filed Thursday, the Nevada Democratic Party asked Secretary of State Ross Miller to investigate whether the nonprofit organization must report the contributions it received to fund mailers attacking state Senate candidate Kelvin Atkinson, a Democratic assemblyman from North Las Vegas. [...]

If there can be “no other reasonable interpretation” than that the ad seeks the election or defeat of a candidate, then the producer must disclose the funding source for the ad.

“If you get in state races, you expose yourself,” said one Democrat familiar with the complaint.

In this case, AFP sent mailers into Atkinson’s district just before the June 6 primary election, with his picture and accusations that he worked for special interests and sought a $1 billion electricity rate increase.

Under federal law, AFP can do as much of this as it wants while disclosing as little as possible by simply leaving out terms like "vote for" and "defeat". However under Nevada state law, any organization using campaign advertising (including mailers) designed to influence an election is subject to disclosure requirements, regardless of what kind of language that organization uses in its advertising. Secretary of State Ross Miller (D) has been very aggressive in targeting these shadowy front groups, and he's making no exception for AFP.

So why did AFP do this? Honestly, I'm still trying to figure it out. Why did AFP wade into a Democratic primary in a super safe Democratic State Senate District?

When The Sun's Anjeanette Damon tried to figure out AFP Nevada's primary campaigns. In addition to repaying a favor to Pioneer Laughlin Casino owner and infamous "Chicken Lady" Sue Lowden by helping the pro Laughlin cityhood campaign that surprisingly failed in June, AFP also took sides against mainstream Democrat Kelvin Atkinson (and for perennial fringe candidate Katie Duncan) in a Democratic primary in a heavily Democratic and African-American district in West Las Vegas and parts of North Las Vegas. Because nothing about the latter campaign seems to make any sense, everyone has wondered why a "tea party" group would do such a thing.

But whatever the reason(s), wading into that SD 4 Democratic primary may ultimately cost Americans for Prosperity far more than an embarrassing loss on their scoreboard. Ultimately, this may cost them that ever elusive and mysterious donor list. And what makes this even worse for them is this may have national repercussions.

But AFP doesn’t appear to have organized a separate Nevada entity, which could mean donors to the national organization might have to be disclosed.

The potential has piqued the interest of advocates for campaign finance transparency.

“It all depends what state law requires,” said Paul Ryan, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center in Washington, D.C. “I’ll be interested in watching this one.”

Ryan said AFP’s tax-exempt status as a nonprofit could also be threatened if the Nevada group is proven to be engaging primarily in political activity.

Wow. Spending a little bit of "stupid money" on a Democratic Nevada Legislature primary may lead to the downfall of one of the Koch brothers' key astroturf front groups. Who would have ever guessed?

Yes, a Few Rich, Angry, Old White Men DO Want to Buy This Election.

And he's back! Harry Reid has really been showing off his badass side lately. He did it again yesterday when speaking about the Republican filibuster of the DISCLOSE Act.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) warned Monday afternoon that if Congress fails to limit campaign donations from the wealthy, a group of "angry, old white men" with billions of dollars to contribute will be able to determine political outcomes in the United States.

Reid's remarks on the Senate floor set up a vote later in the day on the Disclose Act, which would require companies and groups to report all campaign spending above $10,000. He said Republicans were expected to prevent consideration of the bill.

"Their newfound opposition to transparency makes one wonder who they're trying to protect," Reid said. He then offered the theory that Republicans do not want voters to learn about how they are sourced, and indicated that GOP money comes from a few wealthy contributors.

"Perhaps Republicans want to shield a handful of billionaires willing to contribute nine figures to sway a close presidential election," he said. "If this flood of outside money continues, the day after the election, 17 angry, old white men will wake up and realize they just bought the country."

The Disclose Act is a reaction to the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case, which said the government cannot limit campaign spending by corporations, unions or other groups. Democrats have sought to temper that ruling by requiring these groups to publicly report their campaign spending.

As usual, certain pundits were throwing their hands into the air and screaming about what a horrible thing Harry Reid just said. Does he even know what he's talking about?!

Actually, yes. And I'll explain why. No wait, I already did!

Sheldon Adelson has already dumped tens of MILLIONS of dollars into pro-Romney and pro-Congressional Republican Super PACs. In addition to "Mr. Macau Megabucks", Romney has lined up even more corporate titans to bundle for his campaign. Yet while they're raising money for Romney, he refuses to tell us who they are and how much they're giving.

Here's the problem. As Desert Beacon warned us yesterday, we're seeing elections turn into auctions. This is not what our Founders had ever intended.

It's horrifying enough that we now live in an era when a few ultra-rich individuals and multinational corporations can spend as much as they want to buy elections. It's even scarier that we don't know the full picture of who's actually giving how much to what. In a rational environment, the DISCLOSE Act is just basic common sense. It's really the least that can be done to help us figure out who's behind the shadowy attack ads popping up on our TVs, tablets, and mailboxes.

But apparently, Capitol Hill is no longer a rational environment. And common sense is now being vilified for overly political reasons. I'll let Kevin Drum explain this.

The DISCLOSE Act was initially a response to the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, which permitted unlimited contributions to independent expenditure groups but explicitly allowed Congress to require disclosure of those contributions. From the very start, though, the DISCLOSE Act was opposed more-or-less unanimously by Republicans. The thing is, disclosure had always been something of a fig leaf for them, a way of demonstrating that they had a reasonable policy alternative to contribution limits. But once they had the Supreme Court on their side, making contribution limits a dead letter, they suddenly didn't need the fig leaf anymore and support for disclosure evaporated. That happened the very first time the DISCLOSE Act was introduced in 2010, and it's been the solid Republican position ever since. It really doesn't have anything to do with the current campaign season.

But that's not the whole story. The current Republican position is not merely that Democrats want to "shame" rich donors, but that Barack Obama has compiled a Nixonian "enemies list" and is secretly using the full power of the United States government to harrass and intimidate anyone who dares to oppose him. Because of this, it only stands to reason that America's richest and most powerful citizens need to keep their campaign contributions in the shadows. Whether the Republican leadership has actually talked themselves into believing this fantasy, or merely trots it out to gull the Fox News set, is anyone's guess.

Ironically enough, "Senator by Appointment Only" Dean Heller was too busy "campaigning" to even bother voting on the DISCLOSE Act yesterday. How funny. So for Heller, campaign finance reform is only important when he distorts Shelley Berkley's record in his attack ads to make himself look better? OK, whatever.

I just wonder what Dean Heller and Mitt Romney will say to each other when Romney returns to Reno on August 3. It's supposedly his last trip to Northern Nevada before the election. And of course, it's for an uber-exclusive very-high-dollar fundraiser full of rich, angry, old white men (with a few of those women folk allowed in).

Thanks, Pat Hickey... But Where Were You Last Year?

How many times have we talked about the endless culture of corruption in Carson City? And how many times have we suffered in agony as politicians and media pundits played petty blame games while ignoring the real solution to this problem? Nevada has endured an ongoing merry-go-round of corruption in state government since... Well, really since we first became a state!

So are we now ready for real change? And will this change be led by a conservative Republican who's next in line to lead the Assembly Republican Caucus next year? This just seems too good to be true.

Assembly Republican leader Pat Hickey, R-Reno, made swings in Carson City and Las Vegas on Monday, touting his ideas to beef up campaign finance reporting requirements.

Flanked by Assembly Republicans and candidates for office, he pitched five bullet points that he said should be a top priority when the Legislature next meets in 2013, including reporting contributions in real time, requiring candidates to report ending fund balances, and reporting trips and gifts from lobbyists and donors when the Legislature is not in session.

But many of the ideas have been proposed before, only to die with little evidence of who did the deed.

While the Legislature passed reform last year that requires electronic filing and allows reports to be searched — what Miller called “the most significant campaign finance reforms passed in state history" — lawmakers shied away from stiffer measures.

This really does look like a great idea and a nice way to bring some real campaign finance reform to Nevada. So yes, I appreciate Pat Hickey's proposal and his newfound zeal to change the way this state is governed. And yes, I really do mean it.

However, I must still ask this: Why now? Why is Pat Hickey doing this now? Last I checked, the Legislature is not in session.

And as Former Senator and current Senate candidate Sheila Leslie noted in Anjeanette Damon's Sun article today, this is not the first time that the Legislature tried to tackle campaign finance reform.

“People in the system like the system the way it is,” Leslie, the bill’s sponsor, said Monday. “They like the status quo. They don’t see the need to change it.”

She added that, on the Assembly side, neither Republican nor Democratic leadership were helpful in pushing her bill for a vote.

“The animosity toward the bill came from both sides,” she said. “There was equal opportunity hostility to the bill.”

She called Assembly Republicans bringing forward this issue now “a little hypocritical” but said, “I welcome them to the transparency bandwagon.”

Sheila Leslie was referring to SB 206, her bill which would have required lobbyists to file reports on lobbying activity occurring when the Legislature is not in session. It actually passed unanimously in the Senate. But for some reason, it died in the Assembly. I wonder why?

Here's a hint: Take a look at the minutes of the hearing SB 206 received in the Assembly's Legislative Operations and Elections Committee. In particular, notice the hostile tone of several Assembly Members of both parties. When Pat Hickey had the chance to "carpe diem" and build on the strong bipartisan support that Leslie's pro-transparency bill earned in the Senate, he punted... And he pretty much joined his colleagues in showing deep hostility towards this bill.

Assemblyman Hickey:
You mentioned unpaid lobbyists. I assume one must pay a lobbying registration fee during the session. Do they then have to pay an additional fee during the interim?

Senator Leslie:
That would be something the Legislative Commission would have to set— whether it would be one fee every two years, an annual fee, or one fee during the session. This bill does not cover those types of decisions. Right now, a nonpaid veteran lobbyist pays nothing. A nonpaid lobbyist pays $20, and a paid lobbyist pays $300 for the session. I imagine the Legislative Commission would review those regulations and make that determination. I am not trying to make money with this bill. For the first time, we raised the lobbying fees significantly, and it was a revenue-generating act, but that is not my intent.

Assemblyman Hickey:
Lobbyists should report campaign contributions, so the point of this bill is obviously about transparency, but what perceived problem are you trying to address?

Senator Leslie:
What I have heard from my constituents is that there is a public perception that there is a lot of lobbying activity, and that lobbyists are paying for things for legislators such as golf games, fancy dinners, or whatever it might be. As a result, there is a lot of consternation that that activity is not reported. The public just wants to know. This is purely about sunshine. If it is so important that we have them report during session, I believe it is equally important that they also report out of session, when a lot of planning and legislative activity— interim committees or planning for the next session—happens. It is good government to have this kind of reporting. Most states do have year-round reporting, but of course most states meet more often than we do.

Assemblyman Hickey:
Mr. Murphy's [a Clark County lobbyist] house needs painting. Should I paint it? Is that something my business should report?

Senator Leslie:
No, it is not about you; it is about Mr. Murphy. If Mr. Murphy was the painter and was painting your house for free or giving you a discount, yes, that should be reported. It is not about you.

So why did Hickey say that then? And why is he trying to cast blame on everyone but himself for past failed reform efforts? He had a chance to champion SB 206 last year, when the Legislature was actually in session and something could have been done. Why did we wait until now to propose his reform package?

Again, I genuinely appreciate what Hickey is saying and doing now. This is exactly the kind of conversation that we need to have. However the Legislature is not in session now. We haven't even...

Oh wait, that's right! This is an election year. Ah yes, strange things happen in election years. All of a sudden, proposals that never saw the light of day suddenly become the campaign centerpiece as soon as they poll well. Now, I get it.

What a "Stunt": "Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee"

Yesterday, The R-J posted a ridiculously whiny editorial bashing Shelley Berkley for merely pointing out Dean Heller's voting record and asking him to join her in saying no to secretive Super PAC campaigns here in Nevada. According to The R-J, the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision only affirmed "free speech", and those big, bad "LIB'RUL!!!" women should stop attacking poor lil' Rush Limbaugh and his "free speech" rights to have advertisers pay for time on his radio show so he can continue attacking America's women.

Sorry, R-J editoral board (and all the shortsighted white male pundits who think they have a good point), but give me a f**king break!

There's disgust across the political spectrum for the system we now have that allows for the likes of the Koch family to buy elections whenever they want. Back in January, former Republican Presidential Candidate and current US Senator John McCain (R-AZ) joined with former US Senator Russ Feingold to release this statement on the two-year anniversary of Citizens United.

“Two years ago, the Supreme Court handed down one of the worst, and most radically activist decisions in the Court’s history, Citizens United. Overturning more than a century of settled law, and with an unprecedented naiveté of the political process, the Court charted a course for legalized bribery. Sadly, both Democrats and Republicans are now following the dangerous road of unlimited money in politics. There is no question whether scandal will arise from this decision; the only question is when. On this anniversary, we call on both parties to work together to remedy the obvious damage to our political system caused by the Citizens United decision.”

Another former Republican Presidential Candidate, Mike Huckabee, has also chimed in with his disapproval of the post Citizens United political landscape of unlimited secret money-bombs exploding onto our airwaves.



This obviously is NOT about free speech. Rather, Americans from across the political spectrum are increasingly fearful of a tiny group of super-wealthy donors using their Super PACs to exert massive influence over elections and gain control of government. After all, why is "free speech" no longer free? So now we're all required to raise massive amounts of money just to have the same "free speech" rights as David Koch and Sheldon Adelson?



This is why a 69% supermajority of Americans want an end to this Super PAC madness. Does The R-J editorial board think that's just a "stunt"?

And then, there's Rush-bo. When did the First Amendment guarantee the right to a multi-million dollar national talk radio contract and a full slate of advertisers? News flash to The R-J: It does NOT.

I thought the "free market libertarians" at The R-J believed in the sanctity of "the free market". So how can they legitimately complain about "the free market" determining that Rush Limbaugh's radio show is no longer a valuable commodity? At least 52 advertisers have pulled out of sponsoring Limbaugh's radio show as of last Friday. And last I checked, there's no "First Amendment mandate" for those corporate advertisers to sponsor Rush Limbaugh. Are they just as guilty as Shelley Berkley of "actively working to silence someone" who's been making a living off spewing hateful bile about women?

Yes, Rush Limbaugh has the same First Amendment rights as all the rest of us. And that's all. None of us has a guaranteed right to a multi-million dollar radio contract, and neither does Limbaugh. So if citizens like Shelley Berkley put up petitions to cancel Limbaugh's show and corporate advertisers respond by pulling their ads, that's just the American "free market" at work.

It just sounds to me like the radical "tea party" right (that The R-J loved before it became the new brand of "GOP cool") is pulling its own "desperate stunt" to change the subject because it's now starting to fear a painful loss in its War on Women. Even John McCain is now joining Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and other prominent Republicans in begging G-O-TEA leadership to drop the anti-contraception nonsense.



The polling is looking increasingly ugly for Republicans, so now some of them want to drop the birth control fight in an effort to save face. Others, however, seem to think that the bad poll numbers will just go away if they spin harder and try to turn this into an "attack on religious liberty"... And apparently now, an "attack on free speech".

What a crock of crap.

It's not Shelley Berkley's fault that Dean Heller faces consequences for supporting Rush Limbaugh over Nevada women. Her move to point out Heller's vote to restrict women's access to needed health care is not a "stunt". And her denunciation of Rush Limbaugh is not some nefarious effort to "silence free speech". If G-O-TEA politicians like Heller and "tea party" cheerleaders like The R-J editorial board really cared about free speech, they could have said something when House Republicans denied Sandra Fluke the chance to testify on her own health care.

Finding Elizabeth Halseth: Postscript (& Connecting the Dots)

So today, Chuck Muth has one more batch of Elizabeth Halseth's dirty laundry to expose. And jeez, it's a real doozy. And it gets really personal really fast.

Again, I don't really like talking about others' private lives. But in the case of Halseth, where she often injected private morality into the public sphere, she essentially asked for this. And by using her private life to make excuses for not fulfilling her public duties, Halseth also a lack of interest in showing any public morality. Sorry, but who can really fault Muth for "going there"?

And this really goes to a deeper core problem with our Legislature: When did this become "the norm" for governance in our state?

Right before Halseth's sudden resignation overshadowed every other trending #NVLeg story, we were again seeing the usual Sturm und Drang on a Sun piece on three Assembly Democrats not following Secretary of State Ross Miller's guidelines on reporting campaign expenses done while working in Carson City. As usual, queue the "revolutionaries" yielding pitchforks and decrying "corruption". But again, it was all just another Kabuki dance, since no one wanted to go to the heart of this problem, which is the massive amount of corporate money infecting our politics and our government. Instead of asking why who didn't report what on which form, why can't anyone ask why we have to accept the gaming-mining-lobbying industrial complex bestowing upon us "the best democracy money can buy"?

We saw another act in this Kabuki theater last week when the Harvey Whittemore scandal broke. Pundits were pointing fingers in all directions. "How much did Harry Reid get from Whittemore? What will Dean Heller do with all those donations?" But funny enough, Jane Ann Morrison, one of the resident R-J pundits, actually made what was perhaps the smartest comment on last Friday's episode of "Nevada Week & Review" when she pointed out that what Whittemore did with his contributions isn't all that different from what the likes of Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess are doing with Super PACs today. Of course, the only big difference is that Whittemore was "ahead of the curve" in doing it before the US Supreme Court legalized Super PACs with their Citizens United decision. Again, instead of asking why who accepted how much from whom, why can't anyone ask why we have to accept that so much power and influence in concentrated in the hands of a privileged few?

And finally, we saw California's State Senate Leader tell us to stick our SB 271 "Trash Tahoe Bill" where the sun don't shine. Thankfully, California's Legislature doesn't seem to be under the firm grip of corporate lobbyists yearning for more real estate development at Lake Tahoe. Unfortunately, ours has been. Again, why can't anyone ask why we have to accept that a few powerful corporate interests get to call all the shots and pave paradise to put up more parking lots?

And this takes us back to Elizabeth Halseth and her now defunct political career. How did it last for this long? And how was she able to get away with her escapades with Tiger Helgelien until late last week? If you want answers, then I suggest you see her page on the Secretary of State's new AURORA campaign finance database. And remember who funded "anonymous" attacks on her Democratic opponent in 2010. And remember who guided her last February to smear elementary school kids begging for the chance to stay in school. Notice anything?

If one really has to ask why Halseth made it to Carson City last year, then one hasn't been paying attention.

Believe it or not, a whole lot of folks across the state are still asking that question. And a whole lot of folks are still shocked at Chuck Muth exposing Halseth's moral hypocrisy. I'm just waiting for someone, anyone (!!!), to demand the kind of changes to our system that will no longer allow shadowy corporate interests to pop out of nowhere and send "empty suit" politicians like Elizabeth Halseth to do their bidding.

Another Day, Another Campaign Finance Scandal

Wait, didn't we already have Groundhog Day? So why does it seem like we keep waking up to the same damned story?

This time, the latest scandal du jour involves real estate developer Harvey Whittemore. Because he's the subject of an federal investigation and involved in a growing number of law suits, all of a sudden everyone from Harry Reid to Dean Heller and others (in both parties) is throwing out Whittemore's campaign contributions like rotten eggs.

And this morning, Jon Ralston tried to explain "how Harvey Whittemore became a leper".

Whittemore’s ebullience and intellect endeared him to many elected officials, who often counted him as a friend and counselor as well as donor. His insinuation into their lives brought him immense power and them hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars. The man everyone simply called or knew as Harvey was ubiquitous, whether lobbying in Carson City or building at Coyote Springs.

Now, like Jimmy Stewart’s Harvey, he is invisible, turned into a not-so-benign ghost because of three scarlet letters that see-no-evil politicians cannot abide: F-B-I.

I make no judgment yet on the sulfurous allegations that have made their way into court documents and the media as part of the acidic breakup of Whittemore and his business partners. But without knowing exactly what Whittemore may or may not have done (the schadenfreude contagion notwithstanding) and putting aside years of cozy, unquestioning interaction, suddenly these politicians have adopted a guilty-until-proven-innocent posture and shed Harvey’s campaign cash like it was mob money.

This I do judge. And I judge it to be craven, pathetic and phony.

The default response here, as it is in almost any situation for elected officials, is not whether someone they have consorted with for years did anything wrong. No, it is a simple calculus that is brought to bear: How does this make me look? This solipsistic reflex thus allows them — to borrow the immortal words of ex-Nevada Sen. Paul Laxalt, who offered them to Ferdinand Marcos when his time was up — to cut and cut cleanly.

And so that's what's happening. No one wants to be associated with someone who "looks like a crook", even if we don't really know yet if he's actually a crook. As Heidi Klum would say on "Project Runway": "One minute you're in, but the next minute you're out." Six years ago, Whittemore (and all his campaign cash) may have been oh-so-stylish and in. But now that there's a legal gray cloud hanging over his head, he suddenly finds himself out.

And funny enough, Ralston also predicted the next campaign finance scandal to erupt soon. Remember how Sheldon Adelson became Newton Leroy Gingrich's #1 Sugar Daddy the casino mogul who singlehandedly revived Newt Gingrich's political career (if only for another three weeks)? Apparently after promising Willard Mittens Romney that he'll become Romney's #1 Sugar Daddy switch his campaign cash flow to him if he becomes the G-O-TEA nominee, Adelson may end up throwing another $10 million into the pro-Newton Super PAC just because he doesn't like "Frothy" Ricky Santorum.

Right now, Newton and Willard are competing to be Adelson's new BFF. But at some point in the near future, that may all change. A while back, WikiLeaks released a series of diplomatic cables that we now know included concern about Adelson directly lobbying China's central government in Beijing over his Macau casinos. Now, the federal Department of Justice and Securities & Exchange Commission are investigating Las Vegas Sands (Adelson's global casino empire) over possible illegal bribing of Chinese government officials, as well as over LVS' long rumored involvement with the Macau mafia.

Whoops. How long can Willard and Newton keep dancing with this? And how much longer can they, along with many Nevada Republicans, ignore the Macau problems now plaguing their other favorite casino mogul? We all know how Steve Wynn believes that America has become some hot socialist mess, yet China has somehow become the new global beacon of freedom. (HUH??!!) Former Wynn BFF and business partner Kazuo Okada is now calling BS on Wynn's delicate China dance, and he's asking for documents regarding Wynn Resorts' recent $135 million pledge to the University of Macau, a pledge that just happens to coincide with the expiration of Wynn Resorts' Macau gaming license. Recently Steve Wynn has become more a beloved figure in Nevada GOP circles because of his constant rants against President Obama and constant campaign donations to Dean Heller, but how long will this last?

And really, how long can we keep missing the forest for the trees? I'm already seeing the usual "tea party" suspects claim that Harry Reid is some epic, "EVIL!!!" figure for taking Harvey Whittemore's donations. So when will they condemn Dean Heller for doing the same? And when will they condemn the likes of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney for flirting with casino billionaires suspected of bribing the Chinese government?

And when will the entire Nevada political establishment stop this ridiculous kabuki theater that resumes whenever another campaign finance scandal emerges? In 2010, we saw plenty of "outrage" over scandals encircling state legislators Barbara Cegavske and Steven Horsford... But very little was done last year to change the system. The same "outrage" surfaced again once Rory Reid's politically posthumous campaign scandal surfaced. And again, no one wanted to talk about the root of this problem.

So I guess I have to bring out the handy dandy clean elections video yet again...



And yes, I will keep doing this until Nevada's pundits and political elite stop with the kabuki theater and mindless finger pointing, and start discussing real solutions to this ongoing fiasco.



Until we clean the campaign money supply, we'll only see more of these scandals surface. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's time to put up or shut up. If folks here are serious about stamping out the corruption of big corporate money in our politics, then it's time to take the big corporate money out of our system and support clean money & clean elections.

Rory Be Gone? Get to the Root of It

"The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil"- 1 Timothy 6:10, Bible

It's saddening to see this...

In one of the most brazen schemes in Nevada history, gubernatorial candidate Rory Reid’s campaign formed 91 shell political action committees that were used to funnel three quarters of a million dollars into his campaign, circumventing contribution limits and violating at least the spirit – and maybe the letter – of the laws governing elections.

Reid, who was fully aware of what was done, essentially received more than $750,000 from one PAC – 75 times the legal limit -- after his team created dozens of smaller PACS that had no other purpose other than to serve as conduits from a larger entity that the candidate funded by asking large donors for money. Indeed, the shell PACs were formed in the fall and dissolved on Dec. 31, after they had served their short-term function, which was to help the candidate evade campaign contribution laws.

Reid solicited donations for the Economic Leadership PAC, which raised more than $800,000 over a five-month period – donations that were then disbursed in $10,000 increments to dozens of other PACS, which quickly funneled the money back to the candidate’s campaign account.

But why would any of us really be surprised? This is the system we have, and the politicians who raise the most corporate money are rewarded.

Already, we are hearing of "OUTRAGE!!!" over this... But this is merely the symptom. Hardly anyone in Carson City wants to talk about the disease.

Hmmm... I wonder why?

Nevada’s campaign finance laws are written to favor incumbents and the special interests that fund them — and that won’t change any time soon.

Let’s say a candidate is weighing a run against an incumbent and wants to know how much money the office-holder has. That’s nearly impossible because candidates for office aren’t required to report money in the bank.

Perhaps a constituent wants to see who is funding a candidate’s campaign before deciding how to vote. Even getting that basic information can prove tricky. Many reports are written by hand and are suspiciously hard to read.

The reports also can’t be searched electronically, making it difficult to track an individual donor’s contributions.

Critics also take issue with the schedule for releasing candidates’ contribution and expense reports.

For years, Ross Miller has lobbied The Legislature to reform our horribly antiquated Nevada campaign finance laws to make them more transparent. But for some reason, it keeps getting killed.

Hmmm... I wonder why?

Maybe instead of screaming about the symptoms, we should look at the disease.

And what might be the disease, you ask? Go back to the top of this diary.

Must we really keep asking what the problem is? It's all the corporate money flooding our system, buying and selling candidates to the highest bidder, and silencing all those who can't afford to bribe their way into power. We are now seeing this on the national level with the Koch family and their fellow "Tea Party, Inc." comrades in bloated checkbooks trying to buy wholesale control of our entire government, but it seems Nevada has been plagued by this kind of manipulation for even longer.

[Now Senator] Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, said campaign finance reform is unlikely without constituent pressure.

“The only way it’s going to happen is if the public demands it,” she said. “The people who benefit the most from loose campaign finance rules are those in elected office.”

The ultimate solution to the state’s transparency problems, Leslie said, is public financing of campaigns.

“If you take the money out, you’ll get a lot more qualified people to run for office,” she said. “You’ll take away the power of special interests, who will not have as much influence.”

Sheila Leslie is right. And so is Bill Moyers. So who else is listening?

Instead of whining about the symptoms, we need to take on the disease. In the near term, it helps to have a better idea of who is donating to whom. And in the long term, we need to make people understand that the only way to clean the system is to clean the money supply.

So before I hear anyone else screaming about what Rory Reid did or didn't do, or whatever new campaign money scandal soon emerges, I want to hear real solutions. Like Clean Money. Seriously, it's time to put up or shut up.